Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PACT's lottery on AprillSth will not negatively affect the student's current circumstances; they <br /> <br />,will ultimately be admitted to kindergarten. Injunctive relief is not necessary. <br /> <br />c. PACT and. other Members of the Public Face Substantial <br />Harm <br /> <br />In contrast to the lack of harm to Look, the harm a temporary injunction would impose on <br /> <br />PACT, its students and their families, and other PACT applicants is immediate and real. <br /> <br />Granting Look's injunction would usurp the legislature's specified procedures for enrollment, <br /> <br />and substitute Look's Ramsey resident preference for those that the legislature approved. Rather <br /> <br />than favoring siblings and those persons who qualify for the proximity preference, both of which <br /> <br />are clearly mandated by the statutory language, Look would have PACT create a new overriding <br /> <br />preference for Ramsey residents that would shift what he claims to be the irreparable harm of <br /> <br />decreased PACT admissions chances to non-resident applicants.3 This would actually be more <br /> <br />damaging because families with siblings already enrolled at PACT have relied on the availability <br /> <br />of the Sibling Preference that is found in PACT's admission's policy. DeBruyn Aff., ~ 17. <br /> <br />Further, if the lottery process and all admissions decisions are estopped, PACT will suffer <br /> <br />monetary damages that will have effects on its operations that cannot be remedied. Id., ~ 18. <br /> <br />Finally, imposing an injunction at this point may require PACT to reconsider the <br /> <br />admission status of students in every grade level. This would create significant confusion and <br /> <br />3 Indeed, Look absurdly requests a court order that would require PACT to violate Minn. Stat. .~ <br />124 D.l 0 by prohibiting the application of the statutorily mandated sibling preference to certain <br />applicants. Specifically, Look would deny the sibling preference to siblings of PACT students <br />who are not Ramsey residents because in his view they were erroneously admitted. Look Aff., ~ <br />16. Look fails to recognize that he has no evidence to support his contention that the non- <br />Ramsey residents were wrongly admitted; these non-resident students might have legitimately <br />won lottery spots even if Look's interpretation of the Town Preference had been applied. <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />-145- <br />